All my years reporting on arraignments, trials, dangerousness hearings, and a slew of other judicial machinations have led me to one conclusion: Justice in Massachusetts — and maybe America — would look a lot different if all of us who haven’t seen the inside of a courtroom spent a day in one.
The staggering size of the workload laid on court employees and lawyers day in and day out is the first courtroom reality that would make an impression on anyone who hasn’t been to court.
COVID-19 closed courts for months or diverted them to remote sessions, and the judicial system’s reemergence from these restrictions masks a case backlog that pushes all manner of legal proceedings ranging from complicated trials to evictions months away on the court calendar.
The second most-startling impression courtrooms make on first-time visitors is the demeanor and dress of courthouse clientele.
People who have been arrested and held for arraignment can be excused for appearing mildly unkempt when they arrive in court. But you would think the majority of people forced to spend hours sitting on a hard bench would arrive in court dressed respectfully and appearing contrite and contemplative as they ponder their part in the circumstances that forced them to spend a day in court.
People who get arrested frequently refer to the experience as “catching a case.” In other words, they view their partial or complete responsibility for law-breaking behavior as something that is as arbitrary and essentially unavoidable as contracting the common cold or the flu.
Frequent-flier status in District Court shouldn’t prevent those accused of a crime from abiding by common courtesies like showing up on time, speaking in a respectful tone of voice, and exercising self-discipline.
The ability to practice even one of these social mores would have probably kept them out of trouble in the first place.
The biggest contributor to discourtesy and clogged court dockets, in my view, is the explosion of harassment-prevention-order filings in court. It’s important to distinguish these orders from abuse-prevention orders designed to protect people and save their lives.
Known in the Massachusetts legal system as 209As, abuse-prevention orders were the product of court reform efforts brought to light by abuses documented by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Eileen McNamara.
These orders are different from 258E prevention orders. Massachusetts courts in the last three months of 2021 saw 3,520 of these orders filed with each requiring a hearing, paperwork, and adjudication.
Because mobile devices have made everyone a photographer and videographer, 258E filings are often accompanied with amateur evidence of the alleged harassment. Social media has elevated harassment to a form of social theater that can be validated by filing a 258E instead of attempting to resolve problems in an adult manner.
As COVID hopefully subsides, courts have huge backlogs to clear up. This work will require prioritizing and expediting cases, especially trials, that have been delayed by the pandemic.
How about having a retired judge and clerk handle 258Es in special-court sessions so they don’t keep clogging up courts? Harassment complaints that cannot be resolved with an initial hearing could be referred to a mediation board.
Meanwhile, if you’ve never been inside a courtroom, schedule a visit, and let me know if you think my observations are off base.
